AuthorTopic: Balance of power needed. (Read 19569 times)

I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

i think there was a hue an cry about selection committee in past and look at the threa posted by teddy of committee members from the time saurav was selected....sambharan banerjee .....kiran more has a better track record than mr.banarjee anyday...he has the second best credentials after kirmani....pranov roy ....brijesh patel....s.chandreshekar...if this guys can be selectors dungurpur .....oh gawd....he of the famous "miya captain banoge" epitaph...surely kiran more can too.as for gavaskar less said the better....he makes more money and wouldnot give it up unless compensated....which is very fair enough...we pay selectors nothing....he was chairman for our training centre in bangalore and his contribution there is well documentedthere is a flaw in the argument only ex test cricketers can be good selectors....jagdale even wright has acknowledged as very good selector....look at selectors from world over including our neighbors it is not necessary they are all roy dias imran khan and ranatunga...even aussies selectors chairman didnot play test and he is the guy who asked waugh to go....and they are doing ok....a good cricketer neccessarily is not a good selector....what we need is an unbiased board ...and that has not happened be it dalmiya or powar now. i think muttiah had the right intentions but the power brokers like rungta and dalmiya didnot want that....people hate modi but look what he has done to rajasthan cricket after coup against rungta and his family which was running it like their fiefdom....

Good article CLR!.....GC is playing a dangerous game, only time will tell..what will India gain or lose by this great gamble.He is demanding stunning sacrifices, all in the name of 'great future of Indian cricket'...'WC'07'. etc.Is it unfair to expect some stunning results from Chappel's team?It is standing on the hopes and emotions of numerous cricket lovers of India. They better get a move on, we can't bear the weight of their boots!I hope, it is not too late by the time BCCI and India's cricket aficionados realize their folly!

CLR can't agree with you more. Everytime the issue is brought up it is said that it has always been this way--and as tombaan said, the Aussie chief selector is brought up. Well, a lot of people have been asking for this change. We need well informed selectors. We need selectors who don't just go by name, but who are armed with stats and videos. Some fo these selectors are the ones that cast the vote for Pawar (not saying it hasn't happend before, probably has) for the election and were promptly rewarded with a spot. Now, coming back to Australia -- they do have a selector who didn't have a distinguished career but he's not there because of his political connections but because he's well-respected. ALSO, let's not forget the other Aussie selectors include the likes of Merv Hughes (250+ test wickets). And why even look to Aussies for this? Do the Aussies pick people from their u-19 squad and throw them into test matches? Do the Aussies let their former captain know of axing through the media? No, I think not. We need an Indian model, suited for India. Gavaskar, don't care how much he makes, is a well-informed guy. Pataudi, another one. Vegasarkar, a third one. Almost everyone agrees that Chappell is bullying the committee. Should that be the case? But how can it not when you have FOUR cricketers that were average Ranji players?

Absolutely. I am not saying that GC is bound to fail. Just that this imbalance of power, in what is a battle of subjective perceptions (whether SG is good enough or not, whether ZK deserved to be thrown out), is not good in the long run. Frankly, the Chappels are known for their bullying tactics. You cannot expect anything different from them. It is both their strength as well as weakness. We need checks and balances.

CLR as usual one more good post and very pertinent points raised, I agree with you that the selection committee needs to have more BoP vis-a-vis one person controlling a bunch of performing monkies.

But lets look at slightly differently, for all his faults and biases (I dont like this guy mind you) KM and his team have actually blooded a few raw youngsters, they have done what no other selection panel has done in the history of Indian cricket almost single handedly killed the culture of primma donna's in the playing squad (albeit replaced by a more petulant one at the coaching level).

I guess at some level it augurs well for Indian cricket that we will finally be rid of players who think they are bigger than the game they play. (Again not be construed as a harangue against SG).

What we need is some more investment in the ability of coaches to select the right team. I feel this needs to be completely professional set up with a contracted employment linked to measurable results. Then it does not matter whether it is ex cricketers or you and me doing the job when we know our back side is on the line each time the team messes up the best will automatically and always get selected.

CLR as usual one more good post and very pertinent points raised, I agree with you that the selection committee needs to have more BoP vis-a-vis one person controlling a bunch of performing monkies.

But lets look at slightly differently, for all his faults and biases (I dont like this guy mind you) KM and his team have actually blooded a few raw youngsters, they have done what no other selection panel has done in the history of Indian cricket almost single handedly killed the culture of primma donna's in the playing squad (albeit replaced by a more petulant one at the coaching level).

I guess at some level it augurs well for Indian cricket that we will finally be rid of players who think they are bigger than the game they play. (Again not be construed as a harangue against SG).

What we need is some more investment in the ability of coaches to select the right team. I feel this needs to be completely professional set up with a contracted employment linked to measurable results. Then it does not matter whether it is ex cricketers or you and me doing the job when we know our back side is on the line each time the team messes up the best will automatically and always get selected.

Well Frankly, SG did indeed turn into a prima donna and deserved to be hauled up. He needed to work on his batting, play domestics, and return to prime form. Most importantly, he needed to be relieved of captaincy. That much is something I would vociferously agree with. But the point is, he did do all these things! This is one issue and should not be confused with the second one that follows below. Professional rap on the wrists of SG, dropping him to regain form, is OK!!

It is also true that today increasingly one gets the feeling that a fair plane of evaluation no longer exists for you if you are not in the good books of GC (remember the sinister comment about being "good people"?). This is where the new improved SG lost out, in terms of getting just a fair run of opportunities like anyone else (like Kaif, like Gambhir, like Agarkar). It is clear as daylight that today, no matter how good a form SG displays, GC will maliciously and visciously try to undermine him under any pretext whatsoever. It is also true that the latter reasons are personal and driven by megalomania. Come on, is Kaif a better bat than SG? Is Kaif even a worthy test batting prospect for the future? For a man whose talents (determination and hardwork notwithstanding) do not permit him to time the ball sweetly and regularly even when he is batting on 70, there is simply no place for him in any future Indian batting line up. In the larger scheme of things, in the long run, this does not bode well for player security and confidence in general. Hence, dropping SG on purely personal grounds, to satisfy the personal vendetta of an egomaniac, is not OK!!

Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi.

These are unverified second hand speculations. Where is the truth to it? 23-24 sounds BS. These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied. Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints. Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done. Why blame Chappell? Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket). What exactly SG done in WC2003? Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

This is again BS. VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen. Patel's chance will come.Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything. It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things. Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell. More has been one of the best selectors. The only problem I see Parthiv Patel - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman. Others have been good selections.

More is a ex Test cricketer with great credentials. Check his record. What do you mean by second rate wicket keeper? Anyone who plays Tesr cricket is not second rate.

Yeah, I've checked his record multiple times. He averaged 12 with the bat in one dayers and went on to play about 100 of them. He was a man with contacts. It was a time when Pandit and Karim were averaging 40 and 60 in domestic cricket. Look through the record books, Indian history is filled with undeserving men getting test caps.

Quote

These are unverified second hand speculations. Where is the truth to it? 23-24 sounds BS. These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied. Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints. Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done. Why blame Chappell? Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket). What exactly SG done in WC2003? Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

The 22-23 is a VERIFIED report. So everyone is lying about Chappell? There are no bullies in this world?What did he do? He assured we actually got through the finals. What did Kapil Dev do in 1983? Just score a century against a minnow, right?

Quote

This is again BS. VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen. Patel's chance will come.Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything. It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.

VRV was injured, barely in match-fit condition.

Quote

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things. Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell. More has been one of the best selectors. The only problem I see Parthiv Patel - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman. Others have been good selections.

Yeah, and you're showing your intelligence by declaring him the best selector.

To even a neutral observor, his illogical idiotic statements would raise a red flag. Then again, you're no neutral observer when it coems to Chappell.

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things. Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell. More has been one of the best selectors. The only problem I see Parthiv Patel - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman. Others have been good selections.

A good playing record gives you confidence enough to stand up and question/challenge GC's statements. A Gavaskar or Amarnath can go toe to toe with him because they have played and seen as much. A More or Jagdale can not...

Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi.

These are unverified second hand speculations. Where is the truth to it? 23-24 sounds BS. These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied. Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints. Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done. Why blame Chappell? Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket). What exactly SG done in WC2003? Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

This is again BS. VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen. Patel's chance will come.Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything. It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things. Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell. More has been one of the best selectors. The only problem I see Parthiv Patel - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman. Others have been good selections.

Dex and Bouncer have taken care of most of the questions. I just have one for you. You said that 'Majority of the fans agree with what the selection panel has done'. Really? Where from you got that stats? Even on this DG, quite a few of the hardcore anti-SG people have said that SG should have been included. So not sure where exactly you are coming from. If you want to give your personal opinion, then it's fine. Just say 'I think' or 'in my opinion'. Don't speak for everyone or the majority.

Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi.

These are unverified second hand speculations. Where is the truth to it? 23-24 sounds BS. These are grown up mature men with autonomous powers. They can't be bullied. Even the speaker of the house, Bengal CM could not do much - Chappell can only give his viewpoints. Majority of cricket fans agree with what the selection panel has done. Why blame Chappell? Tonnes of people have been asking Ganguly to go even before Chappell took over. Just check RSC(rec.sports.cricket). What exactly SG done in WC2003? Not a single score of 50 against non-minnows in WC2003.

I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

This is again BS. VRV has been ahead in the pecking order for sometime now based on what many experts have seen. Patel's chance will come.Just one BPX1 game can't decide everything. It is inconceivable that VRV will bowl with full steam after getting selected - there is nothing to gain by bowling great in a glorified net practice for English batsmen.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

You are showing your ignorance by confusing record as players with selectoral credentials - they are two different things. Just because someone has a good record does not mean he will not brainwashed by Chappell. More has been one of the best selectors. The only problem I see Parthiv Patel - then again, Patel was selected when Brajesh Patel was the chairman. Others have been good selections.

Dear Teddy,

Since Dex and Bouncer seem to have taken care of the rest, let me limit myself to two clarifications.

1. I am not confusing cricketing intelligence and raw cricketing experience here. I am just suggesting that if this has become a battle of personalities and egoes, we need a personality imposing enough to counter-balance GC's. More simply does not match up to him. And yes, I know More's record very well thank you. He replaced Kirmani as the permanent WK of India when Pandit, Karim and Kiri himself (who played fc cricket till the mid 90s, but was definitely good enough to play international cricket till 1990 at least given that wicketkeepers last very well till their late thirties) were better choices.

2. Secondly, my primary point pertained to the fact that More does not have a backbone. Now this has been established through the many pro and anti SG newsreports that have abounded. If you choose not to believe it, it is entirely your problem.

Dex and Bouncer have taken care of most of the questions. I just have one for you. You said that 'Majority of the fans agree with what the selection panel has done'. Really? Where from you got that stats? Even on this DG, quite a few of the hardcore anti-SG people have said that SG should have been included. So not sure where exactly you are coming from. If you want to give your personal opinion, then it's fine. Just say 'I think' or 'in my opinion'. Don't speak for everyone or the majority.

Oh. Jai, the majority of fans who agree with the selection don't post on the DG or other websites. They are silent observers. However Teddy has the uncanny ability to know what these silent folks think about the selection

Look I was one who was for selecting SG over Kaif and Raina. However I do not think that the decision is ridiculous. It is a decision I do not agree with but one I can understand. And Im not too unhappy about it either.

Look I was one who was for selecting SG over Kaif and Raina. However I do not think that the decision is ridiculous. It is a decision I do not agree with but one I can understand. And Im not too unhappy about it either.

Frankly Gourav, I understand the Raina part, but not the Kaif part (I know you have a weakness for Kaif; actually I do too). Can you elaborate? He scored two zeroes in his last two international outings. I saw your post defending his poor run of scores, but can't you say the same about SG? He was going great guns till that pull shot etc.?

Frankly Gourav, I understand the Raina part, but not the Kaif part (I know you have a weakness for Kaif; actually I do too). Can you elaborate? He scored two zeroes in his last two international outings. I saw your post defending his poor run of scores, but can't you say the same about SG? He was going great guns till that pull shot etc.?

CLR :

SG, Kaif and Raina all had great domestic seasons. It is a wash. Nothing much to choose between them if you just take this season into consideration.

Coming to performances in the international arena, SG should have been selected for the same reason as why Kaif should not be omitted. 2 reasonably good innings in Karachi for SG. 2 0s in ODIs for Kaif. Too small a sample size to judge anything. Rains too played one good strokeful innings, nothing that should have made him a certainty in the test squad. Now, only 2 of the 3 can be selected. So, 2 options :(1) SG and Kaif is the safe option. SG replacing Yuvi and Kaif backing up in case of injury. Both reasonably experienced. (2) Kaif and Raina is the "looking into the future" option which is a little risky. Because there is a chance of RD, VVS, SRT getting injured and then the lineup will be WJ, VS, RD, SRT, Kaif, Raina if VVS gets injured for example.

I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

The kind of selection we have had in recent past i think we should just have couple of selectors who watch our under - 19 guys and pick the team. In recent past only guy who has been picked from out side under 19 is Dhoni. Rest from Veeru to Parthiv to Ratra to RP Singh to Raina all have come up from Under 19. This has also meant that if you have never played for India U-19 your chances of being picked for test side are very low. Since these kids spend a lot more time in lime light from early stage and spend time at NCA, plays their own WC they are in limelight. And folks who miss this age group bus are not even talked about. This year in Ranji we had the Haryana All Rounder Sachin Rana doing really well but he isnt even picked for North Zone Devdhar Trophy.

Look I was one who was for selecting SG over Kaif and Raina. However I do not think that the decision is ridiculous. It is a decision I do not agree with but one I can understand. And Im not too unhappy about it either.

Frankly Gourav, I understand the Raina part, but not the Kaif part (I know you have a weakness for Kaif; actually I do too). Can you elaborate? He scored two zeroes in his last two international outings. I saw your post defending his poor run of scores, but can't you say the same about SG? He was going great guns till that pull shot etc.?

Can you explain why you understand the raina part but not Kaif one? Just because he scored two Zeros in last two games you think he is no good? Because other than that he has been in decent form in Domestic Season. Played quite well for UP leading from front. And what Raina has done so far to confirm that he is really good? He hasnt even played one big inning in his first class career yet.

SG, Kaif and Raina all had great domestic seasons. It is a wash. Nothing much to choose between them if you just take this season into consideration.

Coming to performances in the international arena, SG should have been selected for the same reason as why Kaif should not be omitted. 2 reasonably good innings in Karachi for SG. 2 0s in ODIs for Kaif. Too small a sample size to judge anything. Rains too played one good strokeful innings, nothing that should have made him a certainty in the test squad. Now, only 2 of the 3 can be selected. So, 2 options :(1) SG and Kaif is the safe option. SG replacing Yuvi and Kaif backing up in case of injury. Both reasonably experienced. (2) Kaif and Raina is the "looking into the future" option which is a little risky. Because there is a chance of RD, VVS, SRT getting injured and then the lineup will be WJ, VS, RD, SRT, Kaif, Raina if VVS gets injured for example.

It is a home series - this where the experimentation should begin. The whole of middle order can't be 33+ in age. VVSL is almost 32? The regeneration has to begin now. Unless the whole middle order lacks experience, the backup has to be one for the future. Give experience as much as possible when others are around. A senior batsman could be a backup if the majority of the first choice is raw. When 4 out of 6 are very experienced, why do you need an equally experienced guy as the backup. It is an ideal opportunity to blood new players. We need to grab it as fast as we can.

I do not agree with Kaif's selection. As I have said before Gambhir should have been retained in his place. An opener can double up as a backup middle order batsman. Gambhir will serve dual purpose - injury backup and one of 3 openers in the team. Raina as the other backup batsman. A lot of people would question Gambhir's retention - SG's fans would have raised a hue and cry over that. That is the main reason I think Gambhir was dropped. His poor form did not warrant his axing at this stage. He is a very good player andneed to keep faith in rare talent.

The batting side is well settled and there are questions on the bowling dept. Yuvraj's injury was an opportunity to try out 5 bowlers - with Dhoni and Pathan it was a practical solution to Yuvraj's absence. VRV,Sreesanth,Pathan and 2 spinners is my first choice for the first Test.

Can you explain why you understand the raina part but not Kaif one? Just because he scored two Zeros in last two games you think he is no good? Because other than that he has been in decent form in Domestic Season. Played quite well for UP leading from front. And what Raina has done so far to confirm that he is really good? He hasnt even played one big inning in his first class career yet.

Not because of two zeros - because of the talent he has. Kaif is not talented - has few strokes. His talent is backed up by his below avg record in the domestics. Just compare his FC accomplishments with anyone else - you see the glaring deficiency. Number of 100s, strike rate, highest runs - take a few parameters that evaluate batsmen and see for yourself.

Logged

flute202020

Woof, what is this eagerness to put down GC with words like 'megalomania, ego etc.? Com'n guys, if you put your emotion about SG aside, I think More has been doing a fine job. Our test team looks great with many new faces getting a look in.

As for SG, again, I see this tendency to attack everyone who is not 'VOCALLY & vociferously' in support of SG. Take More1. He is accused of bias against SG2. Also he is not able to stand up to GCWhy can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

Take GC1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.

Woof, what is this eagerness to put down GC with words like 'megalomania, ego etc.? Com'n guys, if you put your emotion about SG aside, I think More has been doing a fine job. Our test team looks great with many new faces getting a look in.

As for SG, again, I see this tendency to attack everyone who is not 'VOCALLY & vociferously' in support of SG. Take More1. He is accused of bias against SG2. Also he is not able to stand up to GCWhy can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

Take GC1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.

Very well put, flute.

I think SG fans are so frustrated with his own peformance (or lack of it), they take it out on anyone who does not cry for SG. It is like if you are not with us, you are against us! Anyone who sees value elsewhere is accused of bad things - I'm finding that out myself the hard way.

Can you explain why you understand the raina part but not Kaif one? Just because he scored two Zeros in last two games you think he is no good? Because other than that he has been in decent form in Domestic Season. Played quite well for UP leading from front. And what Raina has done so far to confirm that he is really good? He hasnt even played one big inning in his first class career yet.

Not because of two zeros - because of the talent he has. Kaif is not talented - has few strokes. His talent is backed up by his below avg record in the domestics. Just compare his FC accomplishments with anyone else - you see the glaring deficiency. Number of 100s, strike rate, highest runs - take a few parameters that evaluate batsmen and see for yourself.

If you check current domestic season you will find him among top scorer. We are not picking the team for ODI where ever everyone is needed to score at 100+ these days. And how do you know that raina has better chance of succeeding? He hasnt even played that much cricket. He hasnt played one single knock of significance in ODI while Kaif has several.

Bottomline: Kaif is a grossly abused player. He has a fair range of strokes. He is excellent with the drives - cover drive, straight drive flick, it is only with the horizontal bat shots - esp the pull and the hook that he has problems - but hey one of the greatest batsmen ever - steve wauugh never pulled or hooked, nor did mark waugh in the later part of his career. So if kaif plays within his limitations there is no reason he cant succeed. In fact he has succeeded at the ODI level.

A lot of people would question Gambhir's retention - SG's fans would have raised a hue and cry over that. That is the main reason I think Gambhir was dropped. His poor form did not warrant his axing at this stage. He is a very good player andneed to keep faith in rare talent.

Why does everything have to be associated with SG - These Chapelix

Gambhir - rare talent - ROTFL

I have already rested my case for Kaif and against Gambhir. Nothing more to add. QED.

Bottomline: Kaif is a grossly abused player. He has a fair range of strokes. He is excellent with the drives - cover drive, straight drive flick, it is only with the horizontal bat shots - esp the pull and the hook that he has problems - but hey one of the greatest batsmen ever - steve wauugh never pulled or hooked, nor did mark waugh in the later part of his career. So if kaif plays within his limitations there is no reason he cant succeed. In fact he has succeeded at the ODI level.

gourav - this just shows that you have purchased teddy's book on Statistics for Dummies yet, otherwise you would have realized by now that Kaif is just useless

Bottomline: Kaif is a grossly abused player. He has a fair range of strokes. He is excellent with the drives - cover drive, straight drive flick, it is only with the horizontal bat shots - esp the pull and the hook that he has problems - but hey one of the greatest batsmen ever - steve wauugh never pulled or hooked, nor did mark waugh in the later part of his career. So if kaif plays within his limitations there is no reason he cant succeed. In fact he has succeeded at the ODI level.

just when we had thought that the horror of ravi shastri was gone with the twentieth century we have the resurrection of the ghost in the form of kaif. welcome to the murder of strokeplay. thank god he does not play the pull or else even that shot would have died of suffocation if he was playing it.

reverse sweep

I am commenting purely on More the player. India has always been blessed with very good wicketkeepers (till we hit Parthiv Patel. However Dhoni seems to be correcting that anomaly). I remember watching Farokh Engineer (before him was Budhi Kundaran, brilliant. Never got to see him though. He is fighting Cancer in Scotland right now. Hope he is doing well) Kirmani, Sadanand Vishwanath (who sadly fell away after shining briefly but very brightly) after whom More came along. I have seen him play and remember him to be a competent wicket keeper and somebody who would not shy away from putting up a fight with the bat. His stats in the tests and ODIs are not bad at all. And they anyway donít reveal everything about the person. Somebody below has mentioned about his batting record in the ODIs. What this person forgets is More's prime job was to keep wickets, which he did very well. He came quite low down the order and more often than not, had to fight a lone battle.

Some of you may have your own axe to grind against More the selector, which is fine. However in a hurry to run him down, donít call him a second rate wicketkeeper. He was first rate and did his job well

I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

On the contrary, More is our one of the most gutsy selector and certainly was a decent wicketkeeper batsman. I say he is gutsy because he chucked Ganguly ( and rightly so) even when Daalu was at the helm. Your naming More and Jagdale itself speaks volume of your partisan thinking and icing on cake is suggesting gavaskar ( as an instance), quickly forgetting that he never accepted an official position with board. Infact name a cricketer who was properly coached by him? Certainly we expected someone like him who was technically so correct, would contribute to Indian cricket by churning technically correct batsmen then warm his ass on commentry box all the while. And as for your arguement about cricketers with more stature, look what happened with "enjoy your game" coach Kapil dev!

Unfortunately CLR, despite senile reasons like Yuvi's form making SG redundant, SG's lack off, SG's fielding, building future etc, you keep posting trash like this along with support of " couldn't agree with you more" like moronic posters. You probably need a shock treatment to realize the facts of Indian Cricket today.

I would say More as a selector has been a mixed bag. Some good and some bad, like most others. However the net result might just be positive thanks to the influx of great young talent in recent months.

I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

On the contrary, More is our one of the most gutsy selector and certainly was a decent wicketkeeper batsman. I say he is gutsy because he chucked Ganguly ( and rightly so) even when Daalu was at the helm. Your naming More and Jagdale itself speaks volume of your partisan thinking and icing on cake is suggesting gavaskar ( as an instance), quickly forgetting that he never accepted an official position with board. Infact name a cricketer who was properly coached by him? Certainly we expected someone like him who was technically so correct, would contribute to Indian cricket by churning technically correct batsmen then warm his ass on commentry box all the while. And as for your arguement about cricketers with more stature, look what happened with "enjoy your game" coach Kapil dev!

Unfortunately CLR, despite senile reasons like Yuvi's form making SG redundant, SG's lack off, SG's fielding, building future etc, you keep posting trash like this along with support of " couldn't agree with you more" like moronic posters. You probably need a shock treatment to realize the facts of Indian Cricket today.

J and Reverse,

Calling More a second rate wicketkeeper was an unfortunate hyperbole on my part. He was, as you say, gutsy, efficient, and combative. My point however was not just about More himself. It was about the selection committee at large, which is today largely made up of cricketers with little or no international stature (note, I used stature, not experience). So a few things can be said here:

1. Remember we hired GC not based on his coaching credentials (which, for South Australia, were abysmal). We hired him for his Great Cricketer aura and his undeniable knowledge of the game.

2. Now COMPARED to GC, one of the game's greats, More himself is indeed almost a non-entity.

3. Given point number 2, I am disturbed by selection meeting 'insider' reports that say the GC bullied and lectured the bunch of selectors. Yashpal Sharma (no mean cricketer himself) said as much, using very strong words (dictatorship) and fielding disturbing signals (Sehwag is the next target). Pranob Roy said nothing different. The evidence is too much to ignore. After Kotla for instance GC apparently started the meeting by aggressively demanding to know what could be the 'agenda' of people who want SG in the team (I doubt there was a single man in the room who could reverse the question and present it to GC himself). Before the Eng series he apparently gave them an hour long lecture (I stress the hour long part, not the fact that the coach was speaking his mind) to make South's Chandrashekhar change his mind about the GC issue. And all this while, please let us not pretend that selection has been fair (AA, Murali Kartik, Kaif).

4. This situation is further complicated by the fact that More himself has been displaying a complete lack of backbone. His explanations for his selectorial decisions waver between the pathetic and the ludicrous. This too has been documented well and I won't comment on it further.

5. My point therefore pertains to an imbalance of power in selection, not to whether More and Jagdale have good track records as selectors (they have, just as SG has as cricketer and captain), or how good they were as cricketers. The imbalance of power is a worrying thing despite the fact that many of GC's decisions might turn out to be correct.

6. It is in this spirit that I broached the name of Gavaskar, but only as an example of someone who can ask GC to go take a walk if necessary. This would not have been a problem for instance if Amarnath or Viswanath were in charge.

Lastly, j, may I ask you who will administer my 'brain washing' shock therapy? Does GC have a chamber where he takes appointments? How was your experience? What about the fees?

That is the sense of humour. May be you didn't understand that sense of humour. Calling some posters moronic & suggesting the need for you to go for brain washing & Shock treatment is all part of humour.

He has lot of sense in not realizing that People can have different opinions & they have every right to air their opinions (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody).

That is the sense of humour. May be you didn't understand that sense of humour. Calling some posters moronic & asking you to go for brain washing & Shock treatment is all part of humour.

He has lot of sense in not realizing that People can have different opinions & they have every right to air their opinions.

True. Such humor is difficult to fathom.

Anyway, while we are at it, GC repeatedly stated that SG was proving to be a divisive force in the dressing room to keep him out of ODIs and test matches. This is an outright lie and has been countered by a host of people beginning with SRT and ending with Dungarpur. In all the reports I read, there is not a single mention of a selection committee member challanging that obvious piece of mendacity. Has RD himself issued a statement to clear SG of these charges at least?

Take More1. He is accused of bias against SG2. Also he is not able to stand up to GCWhy can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

ANOTHER INSTANCE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY!

DEAR FLUTE. I HOPE YOU REMEMBER MORE'S FLIP-FLOPS ABOUT SOURAV AND THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN FOR EITHER RETAINING HIM, OR CHUCKING HIM OUT OF THE SIDE AT DIFFERENT INSTANCES.

I HOPE YOU ALSO REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID WHEN ASKED IF HE OR ANY OF THE SELECTORS HAD, OR WERE GOING TO INFORM SG OF HIS OUSTER FROM THE TEAM FOR THE ENGLAND SERIES. SHOWS TONS OF DIPLOMACY, MATURITY AND DECENCY, NOT TO MENTION COURAGE, DOESN'T IT?

Quote

Take GC1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

A. REGARDING 'EGO': HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY BAD MOUTHING SG ABOUT HIS -VE INFLUENCE IN THE DRESSING ROOM. AND ALL GC HIMSELF HAS DONE SO FAR IS TO CREATE A VITIATED ATMOSPHERE FOR SG [AS LONG AS HE WAS AROUND], AND MOST OF HIS FAITHFUL OTHERWISE, RIGHT? WHILE EVEN SG'S DETRACTORS HAVE GRUDGINGLY ACCEPTED THAT HE IS AT WORST A DECENT CHAP! SO WHO IS SHOWING VINDICTIVENESS, EGO AND MEGALOMANIA HERE?

B. REGARDING 'CRICKETING REASONS': BUT THERE ARE CRICKETING REASONS TO RETAIN KAIF IN THE TEST TEAM, I'M SURE, BASED ON THE SAME SAMPLE [RECENT PERFORMANCES IN TESTS]. AND DON'T GIVE ME THE BULL ABOUT AGE AND FITNESS. JUST BCOZ SG IS A POOR FIELDER, DOESNOT PROVE HE IS UNFIT. IF SO, SO WOULD BE ANOTHER MATCHWINNER ANIL KUMBLE!

C. MORE AND GC'S 'OPINION': OK, GC DOESNOT HAVE A VOTE. MORE HAS ONE. THE SELECTORS FROM SOUTH, NORTH AND EAST HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE ALL INITIALLY SUPPORTED SG'S SELECTION. AND YET THEY WERE OVERRULED. SO WHO IS DOING THE SELECTION HERE? IT WOULD BE A SAD DAY IF IT TRANSPIRES LATER ON THAT THE REASON PP WAS CHOSEN FOR PAKISTAN AS A PASSENGER WAS THE 50 LAKH CHECK HE EARNED FOR DOING NOTHING AND MORE GOT A CUT FROM IT! THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART, BUT AFTER THE ABHIJIT KALE INCIDENT, AND THE SUBSEQUENT POLITICAL MANUEVRING BY MORE FROM ONE CAMP TO ANOTHER, I CANT BELIEVE MORE IS NOT INVOLVED IN PAYOFFS!

Quote

Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.

R U HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN MANAGER? ARE THEY, OR SPECIFICALLY GC, RUNNING FOR PM-SHIP NEXT ELECTIONS? PERSONALLY I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED, GIVEN THE SORT OF POWER HE SEEMS TO HAVE ON THE LIKES OF YOU THESE DAYS. WOULD BE A PERFECT DEJA VU FOR THE 'SEPARATED AT BIRTH' COLUMN ON THIS DG, WHERE SG'S [SONIA *HI] PHOTO IS DISPLAYED NEXT TO GC'S

I think with the selectorial posts being professionalized, I think better ex test cricketers should be in the committee rather than a second rate wicket keeper like More. Presently, GC is able to use his 'great cricketer' effect to bamboozle little people like More and Jagdale. He would not be able to issue forth a one hour lecture during the selection meeting on what is good cricket and what is good selection to someone like Gavaskar for instance. He would not be able to make a hogwash of an argument about the ideal team age being 23-24 to someone like Pataudi. I am perfectly ready to go with jks61's theory in another thread that VRV was chosen ahead of Munaf for thee first test (despite the former coming out of injury) simply because the great man remembered his name and not the latter's.

If Vengsarkar was in the selection committee, or Amarnath, GC would not have been able to blame the inclusion of SG in the eleven for the third test debacle. One of them would have been in Pakistan and would have politely asked him why, in that case, did he want to go into the test with 5 bowlers. There would be more accountability than retroactive scapegoating of individuals. There would be hard questions asked about why apart from YS and MSD, none of India's test cricketers are showing improvements in form under GC (I am leaving out Pathan's batting here). Presently such questions are being drowned by the great man aura and his noise about young cricketers and SG.

I do not grudge More because he has less than impressive cricketing credentials (someone I want, like Ashok Mankad, has even less), but because he has, through his contradictory statements, proven that he has no backbone whatsoever.

On the contrary, More is our one of the most gutsy selector and certainly was a decent wicketkeeper batsman. I say he is gutsy because he chucked Ganguly ( and rightly so) even when Daalu was at the helm. Your naming More and Jagdale itself speaks volume of your partisan thinking and icing on cake is suggesting gavaskar ( as an instance), quickly forgetting that he never accepted an official position with board. Infact name a cricketer who was properly coached by him? Certainly we expected someone like him who was technically so correct, would contribute to Indian cricket by churning technically correct batsmen then warm his ass on commentry box all the while. And as for your arguement about cricketers with more stature, look what happened with "enjoy your game" coach Kapil dev!

Unfortunately CLR, despite senile reasons like Yuvi's form making SG redundant, SG's lack off, SG's fielding, building future etc, you keep posting trash like this along with support of " couldn't agree with you more" like moronic posters. You probably need a shock treatment to realize the facts of Indian Cricket today.

J and Reverse,

Calling More a second rate wicketkeeper was an unfortunate hyperbole on my part. He was, as you say, gutsy, efficient, and combative. My point however was not just about More himself. It was about the selection committee at large, which is today largely made up of cricketers with little or no international stature (note, I used stature, not experience). So a few things can be said here:

1. Remember we hired GC not based on his coaching credentials (which, for South Australia, were abysmal). We hired him for his Great Cricketer aura and his undeniable knowledge of the game.

2. Now COMPARED to GC, one of the game's greats, More himself is indeed almost a non-entity.

3. Given point number 2, I am disturbed by selection meeting 'insider' reports that say the GC bullied and lectured the bunch of selectors. Yashpal Sharma (no mean cricketer himself) said as much, using very strong words (dictatorship) and fielding disturbing signals (Sehwag is the next target). Pranob Roy said nothing different. The evidence is too much to ignore. After Kotla for instance GC apparently started the meeting by aggressively demanding to know what could be the 'agenda' of people who want SG in the team (I doubt there was a single man in the room who could reverse the question and present it to GC himself). Before the Eng series he apparently gave them an hour long lecture (I stress the hour long part, not the fact that the coach was speaking his mind) to make South's Chandrashekhar change his mind about the GC issue. And all this while, please let us not pretend that selection has been fair (AA, Murali Kartik, Kaif).

4. This situation is further complicated by the fact that More himself has been displaying a complete lack of backbone. His explanations for his selectorial decisions waver between the pathetic and the ludicrous. This too has been documented well and I won't comment on it further.

5. My point therefore pertains to an imbalance of power in selection, not to whether More and Jagdale have good track records as selectors (they have, just as SG has as cricketer and captain), or how good they were as cricketers. The imbalance of power is a worrying thing despite the fact that many of GC's decisions might turn out to be correct.

6. It is in this spirit that I broached the name of Gavaskar, but only as an example of someone who can ask GC to go take a walk if necessary. This would not have been a problem for instance if Amarnath or Viswanath were in charge.

Lastly, j, may I ask you who will administer my 'brain washing' shock therapy? Does GC have a chamber where he takes appointments? How was your experience? What about the fees?

CLR, I think your original post & the latest seem to have decided that the selections are unfair and then you are essentially going on to construct the possible reasons for it. Why are you discounting the possibility that More indeed believes that SG is over the hill, why are you assuming that More wants SG in the team and hence he lacks backbone?

Again, your characterization of 'hour long lecture' is simply flowing from your perceived injustice to your fav palyer SG and I don't think there is any evidence to characterise it that way. GC is one with stature and insight on cricket and he is expected to use all his cricketing brains to make his point. If you agree with the eventual decision, you probably would have been happy that GC is making his point forcefully.

Over the last few months , I had come to expect atleast a balanced elucidation of the point from you, even though the attitude is one of supporting SG. But recently you seem to have lost patience and you seem to be making 'accusations' on everyone not supporting SG, without much basis.

Logged

flute202020

Take More1. He is accused of bias against SG2. Also he is not able to stand up to GCWhy can't it be that More simply thinks SG is over the hill. He said as much when he said after one of the selections 'we were not happy with his performance for the last 2 yrs'. Its pretty clear More thinks SG is done and he merely happens to agree with GC. There is nothing to indicate that GC is influencing the issue unless we are into rumour mongering or inventing conspiracy.

ANOTHER INSTANCE OF SELECTIVE MEMORY!

DEAR FLUTE. I HOPE YOU REMEMBER MORE'S FLIP-FLOPS ABOUT SOURAV AND THE VARIOUS REASONS GIVEN FOR EITHER RETAINING HIM, OR CHUCKING HIM OUT OF THE SIDE AT DIFFERENT INSTANCES.

I HOPE YOU ALSO REMEMBER WHAT HE SAID WHEN ASKED IF HE OR ANY OF THE SELECTORS HAD, OR WERE GOING TO INFORM SG OF HIS OUSTER FROM THE TEAM FOR THE ENGLAND SERIES. SHOWS TONS OF DIPLOMACY, MATURITY AND DECENCY, NOT TO MENTION COURAGE, DOESN'T IT?

Quote

Take GC1. He's been pretty consistent with his likes and dislikes all along. He thinks SG has an attitude , fitness and form problems. He is entitled to his opinion and we cannot simply attribute it to his 'ego' etc. There are enough cricketing reasons to drop SG. Yes, there can be some second opinions but More & GC happen to believe otherwise.

A. REGARDING 'EGO': HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY BAD MOUTHING SG ABOUT HIS -VE INFLUENCE IN THE DRESSING ROOM. AND ALL GC HIMSELF HAS DONE SO FAR IS TO CREATE A VITIATED ATMOSPHERE FOR SG [AS LONG AS HE WAS AROUND], AND MOST OF HIS FAITHFUL OTHERWISE, RIGHT? WHILE EVEN SG'S DETRACTORS HAVE GRUDGINGLY ACCEPTED THAT HE IS AT WORST A DECENT CHAP! SO WHO IS SHOWING VINDICTIVENESS, EGO AND MEGALOMANIA HERE?

B. REGARDING 'CRICKETING REASONS': BUT THERE ARE CRICKETING REASONS TO RETAIN KAIF IN THE TEST TEAM, I'M SURE, BASED ON THE SAME SAMPLE [RECENT PERFORMANCES IN TESTS]. AND DON'T GIVE ME THE BULL ABOUT AGE AND FITNESS. JUST BCOZ SG IS A POOR FIELDER, DOESNOT PROVE HE IS UNFIT. IF SO, SO WOULD BE ANOTHER MATCHWINNER ANIL KUMBLE!

C. MORE AND GC'S 'OPINION': OK, GC DOESNOT HAVE A VOTE. MORE HAS ONE. THE SELECTORS FROM SOUTH, NORTH AND EAST HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO HAVE ALL INITIALLY SUPPORTED SG'S SELECTION. AND YET THEY WERE OVERRULED. SO WHO IS DOING THE SELECTION HERE? IT WOULD BE A SAD DAY IF IT TRANSPIRES LATER ON THAT THE REASON PP WAS CHOSEN FOR PAKISTAN AS A PASSENGER WAS THE 50 LAKH CHECK HE EARNED FOR DOING NOTHING AND MORE GOT A CUT FROM IT! THIS IS PURE SPECULATION ON MY PART, BUT AFTER THE ABHIJIT KALE INCIDENT, AND THE SUBSEQUENT POLITICAL MANUEVRING BY MORE FROM ONE CAMP TO ANOTHER, I CANT BELIEVE MORE IS NOT INVOLVED IN PAYOFFS!

Quote

Lets leave it at that and strengthen the hands of GC & RD. Lets hope for Indian team victory.

R U HIS ELECTION CAMPAIGN MANAGER? ARE THEY, OR SPECIFICALLY GC, RUNNING FOR PM-SHIP NEXT ELECTIONS? PERSONALLY I WOULDNT BE SURPRISED, GIVEN THE SORT OF POWER HE SEEMS TO HAVE ON THE LIKES OF YOU THESE DAYS. WOULD BE A PERFECT DEJA VU FOR THE 'SEPARATED AT BIRTH' COLUMN ON THIS DG, WHERE SG'S [SONIA *HI] PHOTO IS DISPLAYED NEXT TO GC'S

fever, usually in DG parlance, all caps indicate yelling. hope you are not yelling at me. Also, I am finding it very difficult to go thru your whole post and respond. Can you please repost it in small case?